French Enlightenment: truth and life

This paper considers the relations of truth, life and norm in the work of Georges Canguilhem and Michel Foucault argued that in France it was in the philosophy of science that one finds the clearest formulations of the problems of rationality and the sovereignty of reason. This distintive confrontation can be termed French Modern. For Canguilhem, an ontological and existential pathos arose from the fact that living beings were fated to struggle in the face of circumstances. For Foucault, this ontology became historical and political. For both, the key question was the relationship between life itself and the understanding of life. The paper concludes by reflecting upon some implications of the ways in which the relation between life and lived experience is posed today.     

How Adenauer Lost Power: Understanding Leadership Rivalry and Succession Conflict in Political Parties

In this article, we reconstruct and interpret the Adenauer–Erhard leadership rivalry in the CDU. This leadership struggle culminated in Erhard replacing Adenauer in 1963 and Adenauer's continued ‘guerrilla’ warfare against Erhard's leadership, which was one of the contributing factors to the brevity of Erhard's tenure. The case is of intrinsic historical interest but also provides a muster for recent and ongoing leadership succession predicaments in governing parties in Germany and elsewhere. The article presents a conceptual framework of party leadership succession, and zooms in on the (mis)match between the tactical choices made by the incumbent leader and key succession candidates as a key factor explaining the nature and impact of successions. The framework is then applied to the case, and the implications of the findings are placed in a broader comparative context.     

Leader Influence and Reputation Formation in World Politics

The study of reputation is one of the foundational topics of modern international relations. However, fundamental questions remain, including the question of to whom reputations adhere: states, leaders, or both? We offer a theory of influence‐specific reputations (ISR) that unifies competing accounts of reputation formation. We theorize that reputations will adhere more to actors who are more influential in the relevant decision‐making process. We employ two survey experiments, one abstract and one richly detailed involving a U.S.‐Iran conflict, to evaluate ISR. We find evidence of large country‐specific reputations and moderately sized leader‐specific reputations. Consistent with the theory of influence‐specific reputations, leader‐specific reputations are more important when leaders are more influential.